Why are designer's print ads so horribly out of touch?

Cary Grant · Sep 17, 2010

Originally Posted by JG000

Here's a study done on GQ's readership. As you'll see, (and as I claimed) it's essentially interchangeable with Men's Health.

http://www.webster.edu/medialiteracy...ividuality.pdf

^Read that, as it proves my point.

That piece is almost 8 years old. That's long enough for Lauren to go Maine lobsterman to Brooklyn prep to country gentlemen three times. Not to mention the economic disaster that has been print for the last half decade.

The September 2010 demographics for GQ:
64% under 35, with 50% being white collar managers making an average of $130k. They ain't lumberjacks. Except for those wearing suspenders and a bra.

Professor Chaos · Sep 17, 2010

Originally Posted by negusnegas

I actually think the OP is onto something. Caveat emptor, I am going to use both empirical data and some back of the envelope statistical assumptions to support my thoughts on this. First of all, I agree that fashion is and has always been about some sort of escapism and leans heavily on aspirational buyers. However, the question is whether homosexual or effete imagery really reaches the intended audience of the publication. Now to my statistical and empirical insights; assuming that the widely held belief that approx 10% of the population is homosexual then the contention that the magazine, a storied globally distributed magazine, could survive catering to at best 10% of the population would seem unlikely even if we assume that this minority is a voracious consumer of luxury fashion. Now on the empirical side of things, I have participated in a few focus groups on fashion and have found it interesting that the effete nature of fashion advertisements has repeatedly come up. Sometimes in more subtle ways, such as people saying they were unable to identify with say a Dior ad, but more so able to identify with a d&g ad. Interestingly enough both are pretty homoerotic, but the d&g ad has an underlying masculinity that a more traditional male may still be able to connect to, while the dior ads often border on the androgynous. The question then might be, if fashion and by extension the clothing in ads is something that the consumer does or should aspire to then is there really a high demand for homoerotic androgyny amongst the gq readership. I personally doubt it, but am far from an expert. Also, let's not forget that the vast majority of the fashion industry itself is homosexual so it might just come down to doing what you find appealing and not paying all that much attention to your supposed clientele, which I think might be more likely than not the case.
the average person is not going to pay $300+ for a t-shirt, and $1000+ for a jacket. No amount of advertising would make them buy those things. The people saying they are put off by the ads, c'mon! You wouldn't buy those products no matter how they were advertised. At any given price point, you'd demand higher quality than a designer brand is going to offer. And you're going to pick items that are safer (i.e., the styles designer brands were putting out a decade ago that have become ubiquitous). THAT's why you aren't able to relate to them. Hint: the D & G ad with the naked guy is not trying to appeal just to gay men. Not by along shot!

Cary Grant · Sep 17, 2010

Originally Posted by Professor Chaos

Hint: the D & G ad with the naked guy is not trying to appeal just to gay men. Not by along shot!

It appeals to three elements that have always appealed to the fashion (sub?)conscious: Power, lust, control.

Professor Chaos · Sep 17, 2010

Originally Posted by Cary Grant

It appeals to three elements that have always appealed to the fashion (sub?)conscious: Power, lust, control.
nailed it! I would have thrown hedonism in there, too.

Master Squirrel · Sep 17, 2010

Originally Posted by Professor Chaos

Hint: the D & G ad with the naked guy is not trying to appeal just to gay men. Not by along shot!
Could have fooled me. Looks basically like man-on-man ****. I have a particularly strong revulsion to it.

Professor Chaos · Sep 17, 2010

yeah, that's why you aren't their target demographic

Fuuma · Sep 17, 2010

I don't recognize myself in Cavalli ads, bastards must be doing something wrong!

OttoSkadelig · Sep 17, 2010

Originally Posted by JG000

not particularly a fan of the first couple, but i find these perfectly mainstream and i actually like them a lot.

the first one has a strong YSL-ish flavor and is pretty classic in approach.

CK has been following the same aesthetic since the 80s. do you think he'd still be doing so if it didn't work for him?

JG000 · Sep 17, 2010

Originally Posted by Sartorial1

The article is about the magazine's male readership.
You infer that all the readers are male?

Of course, some women might tend to flip through the pages of their husband's copy. Maybe an even smaller number read it on their own, industry insiders for example.

But to contend that the advertisements in the most well-known Men's magazine in the world are targeted towards female consumers is really just arguing for the sake of arguing. We both know if that was actually the case we'd see ads for tampons and Virginia Slims.

And, as I stated earlier, if hypothetically you are right and these high-end menswear brands are spending millions upon millions advertising to a niche inside of a niche, then I will still contend their campaigns are a terrible waste and out of touch to most readers.

JG000 · Sep 17, 2010

Originally Posted by OttoSkadelig

not particularly a fan of the first couple, but i find these perfectly mainstream and i actually like them a lot. the first one has a strong YSL-ish flavor and is pretty classic in approach. CK has been following the same aesthetic since the 80s. do you think he'd still be doing so if it didn't work for him?
I'll admit those are some of the more passable ones. I don't have the time or really care to scan the worst of the worst, so I just linked a few that I saw online. To get the full effect, read this month's GQ. There's a Burberry ad that makes my head spin. These ad agencies need to understand the difference between unattainable and undesirable. And to those saying I'm not Burberry's target... I am. I love Burberry and own a growing collection of their ties (also will be buying a blazer or two by the end of the year).

OttoSkadelig · Sep 17, 2010

Trungtastic · Sep 17, 2010

Originally Posted by JG000

As someone who has a degree and career in marketing...
hahahhaha oh damn, A DEGREE, we got an expert here!

GoldenTribe · Sep 17, 2010

Originally Posted by Trungtastic

hahahhaha

oh damn, A DEGREE, we got an expert here!

No, he also said a career. You are dealing with the Spielberg of marketing, watch your tongue.

Sartorial1 · Sep 17, 2010

Originally Posted by GoldenTribe

No, he also said a career. You are dealing with the Spielberg of marketing, watch your tongue.
He (JG000) said a degree and a career.
You can't nix the words you don't like.
Well, you can
but they are still there (in the original quote.
But in responding you can elect to stress certain words,
and Tungtastic did that.)

SuitMyself · Sep 17, 2010

JG000, it seems you have gender identity issues.

Why are designer's print ads so horribly out of touch?

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Franchouillard Modasse

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Classic Menswear Featured products

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: